Way to go JB. You remind me of the old neighborhood lady that would watch from her front window for a ball to come on her side of the fence. She would then come out and take it and taunt the kids saying they couldn't have it back.

Since when did having an opposing oppinion equate arrogance????

I guess when the oppinion that you oppose is from JB.

BTW, how did your election go JB? Thought it was cute to go on the profile forum and start campaigning by saying "I want to abolish the no 3d rule" Your real intent was quickly rooted out there as well.

What the hell do they put in the watr down there in TX???

Todd

dive shmive, the airspeed dosen't care, and we already know that there is no way to ;imit speed in a dive.
crosswind will never add more or subtract less than headwind/tailwind, so give en the benifit of the doubt.
thermal activity, are you serious??????
what do we do with someone that actually has an overweight model now? at least with an overspeed one, we can ask him to dial down his throtle atv a bit.

sure I am serious. The air can be rising or dropping and contributes to the measurement of airspeed. You wouldn't want to be inaccurate would you? If you are going to measure airspeed, it has to include dives as well, and it can be controlled. Aren't you going to mandate dive brakes as well?

mongo, how many jet events have you flown? OOPS, that's right, your not a waiver holder, are you.

air movement vectors in the vertical plane, have no affect on airspeed of the aircraft moving through them, altitude, but not airspeed. air movement in the horizontal plane, is already counted for in the headwind/tailwind thing.
and how was anyone going to verify the max speeds even with limiters? guestimation, or a radar gun?

mongo

That's part of the point. With speed limiters, they are going to take into account vertical as well as horizontal. NO ONE as even suggested that 200 is absolute. When +- 20 on the speed limter was mentioned as a possibility, the answer was "fine". If the plane exceeds 200 in a vertical dive, without thrust, so be it. If it has a tail wind of 30 mph, so be it. Only you have suggested cops.

Give the man a cigar Right on the money...wondered how long it would take for that card to be played. Mongo understands the issue better than anyone else here.

OK NOW what is the point of all this BS... human frame rate refresh ability or airframe integrity? Hmmm…. Lets take a look see Airspeed for airframe… no problem! Ground speeds for human frame rate refresh ability…problem for some at any rate…

I got to think about that line of logic. The AMA mandates which turbines you may select from. By your logic, should we ban them all?

The AMA banned turbines years ago, then created a waiver. Because that could be the basis of a suit, should we cancel all waivers?

The AMA determined several years ago that a 5# plane at 60 mph constitutes lethal force (or something close, someone else can give the numbers exactly). Should we ban all planes above those ranges?

JR

the banning of turbines years ago was the "original mistake".
why must we continue to propagate a mistake?
just like we don't ban aircraft over 5 # and 60 mph, we should nevver have banned turbines.


and yes, it does look like cops is the answer, just as it is the answer for enforcing the weight limit, and the no alchaholic beverages, and everything else in the safety code and the general rules for any event.

Mongo,
I freely admit that I profess myself to be a friend of Jim Branaum and I take exception to that statement.
IF you can show that he is incorrect in his beliefs he will admit his error and accept the consequences.
At least that is what I have found. He just will not give in until his theory's are disproved, however.
Stubborn...yes. Stupid....NO! I know of no one within his club that would describe him as such.
You don't know him at all! You evidentially don't know anyone in his club either!

all i know about jim is what 30 minuts of total face time give me, and what others tell me when asked about him, and yes some did profess to be in the same club.

Another cigar my man! sorry just couldn't help it.

Ok, we have about 2500 clubs so we need 2500 cops if we hire one for each club. We do have to pay them to assure that they are unbiased. If we pay each one $5 hr, 8 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, that comes to $36,400,000 divided by 170000 members gives us a dues increase of $214 a year.

What a wonderful idea. Course, that does not include radar guns or ticket books.

Mongo, you keep posting about the no alcohol when flying rule. Is that some kind of a major problem for you?

We could just let the police that checks the weight check the airspeed to save a few bucks.

Funny thing is the guys at our local clubs want to see them flying faster than they already are. BTW at the last couple of jet events I have been to there has been a guy with a radar gun, we have been trying like hell to break 200 mph according to his gun and have not been able to do it. And.....FWIW depending upon the angle you hold the gun to the aircraft, and whether it is coming or going you get different measurements all within the same pass.

Has anyone even looked at the results of this poll? The no speed limit guys have it by a pretty good margin.

it is a pointed jab at someone who does and has in the past used alchy whilst flying.

and no we don't hire cops now for the other areas of enforcement, so why hire them for speed limits?
simply make a radar gun or a coupla stop watches available to use.
150 ft traveled in less than .5 sec, too fast, slow it down.

Sure glad your position is to want the experts to have thier way instead.

my problem isn't with speed limits. i actually see that they have a place and can be a good thing. i simply want it to apply across the entire spectrum of modeling, cause there really aint no "safer" models than any others.

OK give me back one of those cigars[&o]

thats ok troll, since i partake of neither tobacco or alchahol, ya can have em both back.
by the way, where did ya get those cubans?

They come up on the beach one day! They keep up the garden really well. Alejandro makes a killer Masitas de puerco al Babalu.

The AMA determined several years ago that a 5# plane at 60 mph constitutes lethal force (or something close, someone else can give the numbers exactly). Should we ban all planes above those ranges?

Thats one person. I suppose a 10 pound plane traveling 120 MPH could kill four in one crash?

I can't speak for JPO, but seeing as I am one of the 6 members of the TRC I can honestly say that nobody from the AMA (or anyone else for that matter) has given me an "invitation" to be a part of any presentation.
I will be attending the Feb EC meeting though, uninvited.

DavidR,

What you seem to be saying is that no one EXCEPT a jet guy could possibly write a rule for the turbine folks. I might be able to accept that IF the turbine community had done any sort of reasonable job enforcing the rules THEY already wrote. Unfortunately they have done a terrible job of writing and enforcing the rules, AS YOU ALREADY ADMIT! So why are you insisting on busting the chops of everyone else in the AMA over YOUR failure? Wouldn't it be much more productive to loudly and publicly admit that set of rules/ideas didn't work and suggest other solutions?

I have yet to see a single suggestion except for the AMA EC to go away and leave the turbine guys alone. I am beginning to think that if we went to the FAI weight limits (around 34 pounds IIRC) and required all sanctioned turbine events to be at APPROVED TURBINE fields (by the AMA and to a standard - no houses or trees within a 1/4 or 1/2 mile circle or so), I might begin to be comfortable enough to try to sell that approach. However, it seems that you guys want more fuel (read that as WEIGHT). So instead of telling me how much I don't know, WRITE SOME EFFECTIVE RULES TO GOVERN TURBINE OPERATIONS THAT YOU WILL ENFORCE! Actually, that is what I thought the TRC (with JPO guys) DID. So what is the problem if the EC wants to look over what appears to be conflicting information? That IS what has fired this mess up.

Kevin G,
Sorry, but I don't have to go to any event where foks throw away the AMA Safety Code as the first order of business and then brag about it in public to know there is a problem with SAFETY. I have seen NO real problems with most of the turbine operations or people as I said that before, so please tell me why I MUST attend an event where the participants yell at me about how I know nothing because I don't fly turbines? Right Tom? Sorry, but that is not a way to sell your ideas to many.

Jim
Your partly wrong with the weight,I think the weight limit should be rasied is because right now if you build a twin turbine aircraft ,and there are more and more guys staring to build these,totally empty,its real hard to get the plane much under 44lbs,more like 46 to 48 for a safe aircraft,and it would be nice to carry enough fuel for more than a 3 minute flite.There should allmost be two weight limits,one for single enigne ,and one for twin engine.

NdFrSpeed